The Dirty Independence Question

[pink_triangle]

Disappointing the see progressive Scotland handing an increased majority to Kate Forbes who can't say gay marriage and a woman's right to choose is ok. I personally hope Welsh Labour do not appoint someone with similar views into the cabinet.

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Disappointing the see progressive Scotland handing an increased majority to Kate Forbes who can't say gay marriage and a woman's right to choose is ok. I personally hope Welsh Labour do not appoint someone with similar views into the cabinet.

Progressive when Indy is driven by xeneophobia and fake history.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

Disappointing the see progressive Scotland handing an increased majority to Kate Forbes who can't say gay marriage and a woman's right to choose is ok. I personally hope Welsh Labour do not appoint someone with similar views into the cabinet.

You really have it in for Kate. She is a member of a religious sect who I fundamentally disagree with but then I fundamentally disagree with most religions - I don't however think that that should stop people who have religious beliefs from holding public office. It is important that they accept that their religious beliefs do not allow them to impose their views on the rest of us. As far as I can see, Kate has never uttered a word to indicate she has any desire to do so and has not come out against any of the freedoms that have recently been won for homosexuals and women.

By contrast the Scottish Tories have a leader who has said that he would have voted against Gay Marriage and is on record with some pretty atrocious racist comments against the Gypsy/traveller community.

I think Kate Forbes is bright, honest and genuine and is one of the most able people in the Scottish politics.

 

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I wonder if sturgeon will take on board her new mandate to shut the fuck up about Indy orvifcshell be like trump about it.

Just out of curiosity, can you explain how Sturgeon has a mandate to shut up?

[pink_triangle]

18 minutes ago, LJS said:

You really have it in for Kate. She is a member of a religious sect who I fundamentally disagree with but then I fundamentally disagree with most religions - I don't however think that that should stop people who have religious beliefs from holding public office. It is important that they accept that their religious beliefs do not allow them to impose their views on the rest of us. As far as I can see, Kate has never uttered a word to indicate she has any desire to do so and has not come out against any of the freedoms that have recently been won for homosexuals and women.

By contrast the Scottish Tories have a leader who has said that he would have voted against Gay Marriage and is on record with some pretty atrocious racist comments against the Gypsy/traveller community.

I think Kate Forbes is bright, honest and genuine and is one of the most able people in the Scottish politics.

 

I think democracy allows people to vote for who they choose and if the "progressive" members of her community choose to vote for her that is their choice. I don't have a huge problem with people with Fringe views being backbenchers, but would struggle to vote for them myself.

However I feel in terms of senior cabinet positions a "progressive" party can't select people with these views. The religious freedom thing is a cop out. My parents go to church and couldn't give a crap who people want to share a bed with, or marry. I would fully support labour in both wales and shadow cabinet not promoting people who aren't happy to say gay marriage is fine, it's something most progressive (or even non progressive) politicians have no issues with. 

[LJS]

9 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think democracy allows people to vote for who they choose and if the "progressive" members of her community choose to vote for her that is their choice. I don't have a huge problem with people with Fringe views being backbenchers, but would struggle to vote for them myself.

However I feel in terms of senior cabinet positions a "progressive" party can't select people with these views. The religious freedom thing is a cop out. My parents go to church and couldn't give a crap who people want to share a bed with, or marry. 

and we don't that Kate is any different from your parents. We should not assume what her views are.

[pink_triangle]

53 minutes ago, LJS said:

and we don't that Kate is any different from your parents. We should not assume what her views are.

I think if you want to be a senior politician and not a fringe backbenchers you have to be open about whether you believe in equality or not.  I don't think someone like her would be promoted so high in a labour administration fudging things on such issues. You wouldn't accept "religious freedom" as a cop out for a tory politician, I don't think you should just because they are on your team.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

and we don't that Kate is any different from your parents. We should not assume what her views are.

In addition my parents would have no issues in public saying gay people should be treated equally and they supported gay marriage. They also walked out of a sermon where the minister went into an anti trans rant.

To them religion is about caring and helping those worse off. They would have no problem publicly advocating equality.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Just out of curiosity, can you explain how Sturgeon has a mandate to shut up?

She hasn't been gifted the mandate she was predicting for herself that means the Scottish people have spoken on the issue. She only wants to hear them when they agree with her. Just as she ignores that Scotland voted for the union in 2014.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Just out of curiosity, can you explain how Sturgeon has a mandate to shut up?

Just out of curiosity can you explain why you think the UK has to grant her desire for an Indyref when spaffer has a mandate to refuse one as that was part of his platform last December.

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

In addition my parents would have no issues in public saying gay people should be treated equally and they supported gay marriage. They also walked out of a sermon where the minister went into an anti trans rant.

To them religion is about caring and helping those worse off. They would have no problem publicly advocating equality.

and Kate has no problem standing on the SNP manifesto which is clearly committed to the values your parents share. There is something slightly Orwellian about your apparent demand that all politicians publicly proclaim support for some sort of checklist of values. Who decides what is on the checklist.

The SNP's support for LBGT+ rights is well known and not in any doubt. 

No one who opposes these rights will find comfort in any of Scotland's mainstream parties.

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

She hasn't been gifted the mandate she was predicting for herself that means the Scottish people have spoken on the issue. She only wants to hear them when they agree with her. Just as she ignores that Scotland voted for the union in 2014.

 

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Just out of curiosity can you explain why you think the UK has to grant her desire for an Indyref when spaffer has a mandate to refuse one as that was part of his platform last December.

Thanks for your answers. They will help me answer your question once the result of the election is known.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

 

Thanks for your answers. They will help me answer your question once the result of the election is known.

Only doublespeak will help you answer my questions.

[pink_triangle]

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

and Kate has no problem standing on the SNP manifesto which is clearly committed to the values your parents share. There is something slightly Orwellian about your apparent demand that all politicians publicly proclaim support for some sort of checklist of values. Who decides what is on the checklist.

The SNP's support for LBGT+ rights is well known and not in any doubt. 

No one who opposes these rights will find comfort in any of Scotland's mainstream parties.

I have no expectation that any Brexit party, UKIP politician will proclaim public support for equality. However anyone claiming to be part of a progressive party (and you have made that claim) about the SNP should have no issues in publicly proclaiming that people should be treated equally rather than hiding behind settled law or collective responsibility. To me being a passionate advocate for equality is a pre requisite for a progressive politicians in 2021, not desirable.

My view as you know is that the SNP are not particularly progressive and are a collection of left, centre ground and right wing politicians who either share a common belief in nationalism or see the SNP as the best route to personal progression in politics.

My belief also is that someone like Forbes would not be able to progress as far in labour while fudging views on equality. I also believe Sturgeon was incorrect to promote her to such a senior position without a commitment to publicly support equality for gay people. I also find it hard to believe you would be screaming about religious freedom of it was a conservative politician.

 

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I have no expectation that any Brexit party, UKIP politician will proclaim public support for equality. However anyone claiming to be part of a progressive party (and you have made that claim) about the SNP should have no issues in publicly proclaiming that people should be treated equally rather than hiding behind settled law or collective responsibility. To me being a passionate advocate for equality is a pre requisite for a progressive politicians in 2021, not desirable.

My view as you know is that the SNP are not particularly progressive and are a collection of left, centre ground and right wing politicians who either share a common belief in nationalism or see the SNP as the best route to personal progression in politics.

My belief also is that someone like Forbes would not be able to progress as far in labour while fudging views on equality. I also believe Sturgeon was incorrect to promote her to such a senior position without a commitment to publicly support equality for gay people. I also find it hard to believe you would be screaming about religious freedom of it was a conservative politician.

 

I'm not screaming about anything.

[pink_triangle]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm not screaming about anything.

Would you offer non screaming support for a conservative politician in the same position? 

[LJS]

Just now, pink_triangle said:

Would you offer non screaming support for a conservative politician in the same position? 

I don't generally support conservative politicians. I find there's usually plenty to attack them on without imagining views they might hold.

[pink_triangle]

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

I don't generally support conservative politicians. I find there's usually plenty to attack them on without imagining views they might hold.

So out of interest if a politician was asked a question if they support black people having equal rights to white people. Would you accept them refusing to answer the question, saying it's settled law and say it's unfair to imagine views they hold?

[LJS]

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

So out of interest if a politician was asked a question if they support black people having equal rights to white people. Would you accept them refusing to answer the question, saying it's settled law and say it's unfair to imagine views they hold?

I'm really not interested in answering an endless list of hypothetical questions as you try & find some dirt on Kate Forbes. 

Let me assure you if and when she comes out against equal marriage, I shall be happy to join you in condemning her.

 

[pink_triangle]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm really not interested in answering an endless list of hypothetical questions as you try & find some dirt on Kate Forbes. 

Let me assure you if and when she comes out against equal marriage, I shall be happy to join you in condemning her.

 

You won't answer the question because you know it would be unacceptable to fudge such a question about race, so why should it be acceptable to fudge a question on equal rights for gay people? You support Forbes because she is on your team. You would condemn such ambiguity from an opponent 

Saying you will condemn her when she comes out against gay marriage is giving her free reign to never answer a question. My view is that on matters like this politicians should answer questions and the electorate can make their decision on who represents then. If she is against gay marriage but wouldn't legislate then she should defend this view. If she is for gay marriage, but worried about upsetting get church and family maybe she needs a different job 

[LJS]

Just now, pink_triangle said:

You won't answer the question because you know it would be unacceptable to fudge such a question about race, so why should it be acceptable to fudge a question on equal rights for gay people? You support Forbes because she is on your team. You would condemn such ambiguity from an opponent 

Saying you will condemn her when she comes out against gay marriage is giving her free reign to never answer a question. My view is that on matters like this politicians should answer questions and the electorate can make their decision on who represents then. If she is against gay marriage but wouldn't legislate then she should defend this view. If she is for gay marriage, but worried about upsetting get church and family maybe she needs a different job 

Fine, I'm sure you have a list somewhere of the occasions when every Labour MP ever has pledged their support for whatever policies are most important to you.

I'm more interested in supporting parties that support diversity and inclusion.

You may carry on your witch hunt to your heart's content.

[eFestivals]

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Would you offer non screaming support for a conservative politician in the same position? 

Wonder if he can say similar about mogg.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

I'm more interested in supporting parties that support diversity and inclusion

Not inclusion with the rest of the people on this island tho.

[pink_triangle]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

Fine, I'm sure you have a list somewhere of the occasions when every Labour MP ever has pledged their support for whatever policies are most important to you.

I'm more interested in supporting parties that support diversity and inclusion.

You may carry on your witch hunt to your heart's content.

I don't see how expecting politicians to publicly support equality is a witch hunt, it's just something you would expect of most progressive politicians and human beings full stop.

I have no issues in having different opinions on policy and think that's healthy in a democratic party. However I think it's perfectly reasonable for a politician to be expected to answer questions on things like equality, abortion death penalty etc, rather than take the cowardly way out.

I am also interested in supporting parties that support diversity and inclusion and think in general labour are the most diverse and tolerant party, but that doesn't mean they are perfect, nor would I support them when they are lacking just because they are on my team. However part of being a party who is consistent in terms of diversity and inclusion is the types of people who you pick for the top jobs. There is a big difference between having a senior role and being a fringe backbencher. I hope labour in 2021 wouldnt give a top job to someone who wasn't comfortable answering questions if gay people should be treated the same as straight people. I would have no issues criticizing them if they do.

 

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I don't see how expecting politicians to publicly support equality is a witch hunt, it's just something you would expect of most progressive politicians and human beings full stop.

I have no issues in having different opinions on policy and think that's healthy in a democratic party. However I think it's perfectly reasonable for a politician to be expected to answer questions on things like equality, abortion death penalty etc, rather than take the cowardly way out.

I am also interested in supporting parties that support diversity and inclusion and think in general labour are the most diverse and tolerant party, but that doesn't mean they are perfect, nor would I support them when they are lacking just because they are on my team. However part of being a party who is consistent in terms of diversity and inclusion is the types of people who you pick for the top jobs. There is a big difference between having a senior role and being a fringe backbencher. I hope labour in 2021 wouldnt give a top job to someone who wasn't comfortable answering questions if gay people should be treated the same as straight people. I would have no issues criticizing them if they do.

 

Look, I've made my position clear. I want the best people possible doing the most important jobs. There are clearly some lines they shouldn't cross.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that Kate Forbes has crossed any of these lines. 

I really have nothing more to add.